At the outset I must declare that I have a vested interest in this matter, but I welcome the opportunity to bring to public notice the dilemma the country faces as a result of the overuse of plastic bags.
I accept without qualification that people use too many plastic bags. I was impressed by the aggressive billboard advertisements paid for by IBAL – Irish Business against Litter – which use slogans such as "Ignore the litter, the Government does" in order to embarrass the Government into taking action about the litter problem. In that context, however, I acknowledge that my company is probably one of the largest creators of litter – particularly that which is caused when plastic bags are thrown away – and I acknowledge that litter is embarrassing to the nation, its citizens and the Government.
I accept the Minister for the Environment and Local Government's judgment that there is a need to use an element of compulsion when trying to solve this problem. Unfortunately, it does not appear that we will be able to make progress towards solving it by simply exhorting individuals and retail outlets to use fewer plastic bags. A number of years ago the Minister was given the power to place a tax on the use of plastic bags at the point of sale. By raising this issue I wish to ensure that the practical modalities of putting this proposed tax into action succeed in realising their ultimate objective, namely, a significant reduction in the number of plastic bags people use.
My concern arises from the fact that there are two possible outcomes – one of which is desirable, the other is not – from placing a tax on plastic bags. The desirable outcome will be that the tax will be seen by the public for what it is, namely, a deterrent against the use of plastic bags. Rather than paying the tax people will reduce the number of bags they use, particularly by their use of re-usable alternatives. The success of this endeavour could be judged on the small amount of tax which might be collected and the low number of plastic bags the public might use. That will be the desirable outcome.
The undesirable outcome will be that the public will not get the message about the intention behind the proposed tax. Instead, people might see it as just another obstacle placed in the way of their getting what they want. In such circumstances they will grudgingly pay the tax without understanding what we are attempting to achieve. This outcome will be all the more likely if what I see as the most probable scenario takes place, namely, that consumers will not be charged directly for every bag they use but that retailers will absorb the cost and recoup it by increasing prices.
Whether customers pay directly or indirectly for plastic bags, they will do so unless they are educated carefully about the reasons for the tax's introduction. They must be informed that the point is not to pay the tax but to avoid it by changing their behaviour. People must be told that this is one tax which the Government does not want them to pay. I do not believe people will get that message if the State merely introduces the proposed tax. Without careful education, it is far more likely that people will simply pay the tax and prices will increase as a result. If people pay the proposed tax, two undesirable things will happen. First, the Government will have failed in its objective to reduce the number of plastic bags in use and, second, we will have caused a further increase in inflation at a time when reducing it has again become a national priority.
I speak with confidence not only about the need to educate the public but also about the likely success that an education campaign could enjoy. My company, together with Marks and Spencer, mounted a dry run on the issue of reducing the use of plastic bags on Monday last. For one day only we focused on trying to show people the alternatives to throwaway plastic bags and we tried to explain to our customers why we were doing this in the context of the forthcoming tax on plastic bags.
Rome was not built in a day and I do not claim that we succeeded in educating out customers fully about this issue. However, I spent some time on the shop floor during the past two days to see if our experiment had a lasting impact. I was impressed by the change in a number of people's attitudes. The reports I received from my shop managers convinced me that people are willing to listen if one takes the trouble to explain what is intended.
An essential element in ensuring the success of the tax on plastic bags will be the need to properly educate the public. If the Department of the Environment and Local Government and retailers devise a campaign to educate people, the measure will have its intended effect. People will change their behaviour and the environment will benefit as a result. However, if the opportunity to prepare the ground through the provision of education is not taken, there is a high risk that the initiative will not work. As a result, people, directly or indirectly, will pay the tax. Their behaviour will not change but the cost of living will increase significantly to take account of this new tax.
My purpose in raising this issue is not to obtain a quick answer from the Minister of State. My aim is to provide him with food for thought in the hope that a study of my company's experiment this week will show the sense behind my suggestion. The proposed tax could have the effect of increasing inflation as opposed to reducing the number of plastic bags in use unless we educate the public. If this is done, everybody will win because people, by their refusal to use plastic bags, will not pay the tax.
